Ideally I would say yes because they are fairly different. I'm not sure Imperator has enough combat mechanics to simulate the difference very well though. Because the vanilla game doesn't have Formations, dynamic battle tactics (like other Paradox games), separate Flanks (Left/Middle/Right), separate Flank leaders, etc. There's also only two combat rows and missile units can't fire over them. We can't place units where we want them in the Formation beyond a very basic system. I don't know if it's possible to add these things or not to the game.

Like the Macedonian Pikemen were basically invulnerable from the front. At least from a distance with their long pikes. But if their tight Formation was disordered from rough terrain (as happened at the Battle of Pydna) or battle then they could be wiped out. Same if they were flanked. Roman Maniples were much more maneuverable for example. And in close quarters combat they were very strong with their big shields and decent length stabbing swords.

There's also the missing factor of Army camps which were behind the deployed army and sometimes fortified (like the Romans did). There are many examples of troops looting the enemy camp instead of focusing on the enemy and messing things up.

The battle system could have been very interesting if Paradox had the will to do it.

Probably should make a Discord server for more in depth discussion.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Firstly, regarding Discord I do not think I have time to manage a server, but I have thought about starting a thread in the Invictus discord if there is a submod section there.

When it comes to adding different unit types the posibility for mechanical flavour is really in the strategic layer; food consumption, movement speed, terrain bonuses etc. A goal with this mod for example is that an army of javelins with a good commander should be able to beat heavy spearmen in marshland. On the tactical side the most interesting values as I see them are flanking, and the weighting of offensive/defensive and whether the unit takes and deals more morale ore strength damage.

Anyways, when it comes to representing traditional hoplites, as well as triarii etcthere are three alternatives I have tought of:

Alternative 1: The current system, with heavy spearmen representing both traditional hpolites and macedonian style pike phalanxes. My idea when creating the mod is that the pike phalanx was just an iteration of the greek phalanx concept, and lighter armed hoplites could be represented by the light spearmen unit. Also it's nice to have the offensive/defensive mirroring of light/heavy infantry and light/heavy spearmen.

Alternative 2: Adding a new Heavy Spearmen unit, and renaming the current unit to Pikemen. This is the most straightforward solution, but I'm uncertain if the new unit will be unique enough. Also, I will have to balance every other unit towards this unit.

Alternative 3: Renaming heavy spearmen to pikemen and light spearmen back to just spearmen, making them a bit heavier unit. This would have added the consequence of making light infantry a more generic unit again, representing all types of barbarian levies etc, which I don't love, but at the same time I don't feel like I have made the light infantry/light spearmen split that interesting anyways. This solution is also tempting because it would simplify the mod a bit (A lot of the spearmen modifiers for Invictus for greek countries could just be kept as-is for example)

Personally I love the idea of a Sarissa style pike phalanx unit. However I too wonder how it is best integrated here to represent a unique use among the other units. Currently heavy spear men have great combat bonuses, great anti unit bonuses against cav and smartly so a 0 maneuver representing the formation's lack of flexibility and how it's said a pike phalanx is invulnerable from the front not the flanks.

I wonder though, cavalry was able to disrupt and defeat a pike formation if it attacked it from the flanks, but unfortunately imperator doesn't have a flanking mechanic outside of manoeuvre damage stacking in regards to unit modifiers. Additionally the question arises then of who fulfils the unique roles of Hoplite or Triarii for example, which were technically also armoured spearmen.

Currently I'm a fan of your third alternative, given certain changes:

In my view to implement 'pikemen' via heavy spearmen, I would remove the heavy spearmen's bonuses against cav as it already retains great combat modifiers especially stacked with the phalanx tactic's effectiveness bonus, plus when you think about it a Sarissa phalanx wouldn't be effective at pursuing mobile cavalry per se rather than it's ability to defend from frontal charges.

Gameplay wise it would also slightly dissuade putting heavy pikes on the flanks just for killing off enemy calvary rather than putting them in the center. Currently heavy spearmen on the flanks can be a good strategy for just ensuring no flanking for either side, killing off enemy cavalry whilst having 0 maneuver yourself to flank, solely to protect a heavy inf centre for example.

This also then highlights the light spearmen's role even more as THE defensive anti cav infantry, especially their viability on the flanks as well since they have 1 manuever instead of HS' 0. This would be especially good if the player arranged it so that light spearmen would reinforce any of his own cavalry that broken to enemy cavalry.

Furthermore as you said, you'd probably also want to buff light spearmen making it slightly more heavier. To balance that, I would add bonuses to light infantry, namely increasing the bonus against light spearmen to make up for buffing lights spears, and some bonus against pikes/heavy spears even, but not more than your javelins unit obviously.

Those bonuses to light inf can be explained historically in 2 ways, as arguably roman Hastati were light inf and in imperator so are barbarian infantry:

In the first regarding Hastati, against pikes they were more manoeuvrable and adaptable to terrain, such as at the famous battle of Pydna. They also had pilum that were effective against even the smaller Pelta shields of the phalanx pikemen (I also bring up the pilum because the light inf symbol in imperator seems to have 2 pila behind it). Likewise this interpretation is supported in the italic tribes tradition's bonuses to light inf.

As barbarians, the bonus against light spears make sense in the context of Celtic double edged longswords and axes, and how roman light spears and phalanx formations struggled in close combat against barbarian mass light infantry shock charges. This is in reference to the 390bc First Sacking of Rome by the Gauls and the battle of Allia preceding it. Also this is also mirrored in some fashion when the Romans also struggled initially in the Samnite wars when their Phalanx tactics were less effective against Samnite tactics of light infantry guerilla attacks born from their mountainous terrain experience, along with more flexible checkerboard formations in battles against rigid Roman phalanx formations.

To summarise my recommendations to your third alternative :

- Maybe remove heavy spearmen bonuses to cav to make it a general anything suffers directly in front of a Sarissa Phalanx. This dissuades flanking pikes along with the 0 maneuver already present.
- Buff light spearmen's normal combat bonuses as i think you mean, making it more of a hoplite/triarii unit.
- Remove light spearmen's bonus to light inf as you are buffing light spearmen's base combat stats.
- Buff light infantry bonus against light spearmen and heavy spearmen. This way they are generally weaker in base combat against them, but could potentially excel in breaking spears/pikes given bonuses from tactics, terrain and traditions (e.g, italic tribes, Celtic, Thracian, Iberian).

It's hard to say sometimes though what should be chalked up to one unit type having better bonuses against others in a fundamental martial sense, and what should be left up to tactics and other factors.